Spinal Cord Injury: Time to Move?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This symposium aims at summarizing some of the scientific bases for current or planned clinical trials in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). It stems from the interactions of four researchers involved in basic and clinical research who presented their work at a dedicated Symposium of the Society for Neuroscience in San Diego. After SCI, primary and secondary damage occurs and several endogenous processes are triggered that may foster or hinder axonal reconnection from supralesional structures. Studies in animals show that some of these processes can be enhanced or decreased by exogenous interventions using drugs to diminish repulsive barriers (anti-Nogo, anti-Rho) that prevent regeneration and/or sprouting of axons. Cell grafts are also envisaged to enhance beneficial immunological mechanisms (autologous macrophages, vaccines) or remyelinate axons (oligodendrocytes derived from stem cells). Some of these treatments could be planned concurrently with neurosurgical approaches that are themselves beneficial to decrease secondary damage (e.g., decompression/reconstructive spinal surgery). Finally, rehabilitative approaches based on the presence of functional networks (i.e., central pattern generator) below the lesion combined with the above neurobiological approaches may produce significant functional recovery of some sensorimotor functions, such as locomotion, by ensuring an optimal function of endogenous spinal networks and establishing new dynamic interactions with supralesional structures. More work is needed on all fronts, but already the results offer great hope for functional recovery after SCI based on sound basic and clinical neuroscience research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".